Volume 26 Number 08
Produced: Sun Feb 16 23:04:14 1997
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Cheating in Yeshiva
[Chaim Shapiro]
Dating of Shut Tzemach Tzedek
[Hyman L. Schaffer]
HaAkademia
[Shlomo Godick]
Hebrew
[Arnold Kuzmack]
Hypertension and Salting Meat
[Yosef Dweck]
Lo Tirtsach
[Merling, Paul]
Plagiarism
[Carl Singer]
Sheheheyanu ; Noise
[Menashe Elyashiv]
Shidduchim and Illness
[Bracha Waintman]
Simanei Taharah and Wallabies
[Eliyahu Segal]
Thou shalt not, umm, commit whatchamacallit
[Carl Sherer]
Toothpaste on Shabbos
[Zvi Goldberg]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Shapiro <ucshapir@...>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:01:42 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Cheating in Yeshiva
I found a most interesting editoral and response from the 1927
Cornell University Sun as quoted in Paula Fass' "The Damned and the
Beautiful" (1977) The issue was the apperant evidence that jewish
university students cheated more frequently then their peers. The editor
believed it was a social problem because "jews had wandered all over the
earth in search of self preservation and had been forced to cultivate
traits that would help him get by."
The response in the form of a letter to the editor countered,
that the real issue was not jews cheating, but the fact that they were
much more likely than any other students to be reported by their peers.
The point is twofold, first, yes yeshiva boys cheat and that can
not be condoned under any circumstances, but compared to public schools,
these boys are angels. There is certainly an American cultural
phenomenoen at work here. Understanding that is integral to working on
finding an appropriate solution.
However, we must still endeavor to stop it. It is still assur
as well as morally wrong. Citing the probability of cultural
socialization cannot, and does not excuse us from our responsibilities
in properly educating our youth.
How do we stop it? Good question. But I can assure you, we can
not expect yeshiva students to be turned in by their fellow students as
jewish students were in the 1920's! (obviously because there was a
sense of anti-semitism at work there that is absent at yeshiva but
further), I would argue that the days of peer judicial process are long
over (a topic for another post). The solution will have to be more
practical and rooted in full understanding of the yeshiva dynamic.
Chaim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <HLSesq@...> (Hyman L. Schaffer)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 12:06:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: re: Dating of Shut Tzemach Tzedek
A recent poster took issue with the dating of Shut tzemach Tzedek. The
author,R. Menachem Mendel Krochmal, is not the same person as the third
Lubavitcher Rebbe. Rather, he was a contemporary of the Taz and learned
in the yeshiva of the Bach. Thus, the citation by Shvus Yaacov is
indeed accurate. At the end of the responsum, the Tzemach Tzedek says
that rejecting participation in communal affairs by those ignorant of
halacha will result in aivah (resentment) <and will push them further
from the community , thus increasing strife in Israel, G-d save us.> In
a postscript, the Tzemach Tzedek writes that the better course in
matters affecting the community is not to put the matter to a vote, but
rather to allow the matter to be decided according to a wise and just
teacher who will be able to establish a proper course of action that all
will agree to. (Halvai that we had such leaders today!) For the sake of
accuracy and perhaps fairness, it should be noted that from the date of
the responsum, the author was dealing with enfranchising individuals who
were simply ignorant of the halacha. In our times, we are obviously
dealing frequently not with ignorance but with those of fundamentally
different outlooks on halacha.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shlomo Godick <shlomog@...>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 13:49:34 -0800
Subject: HaAkademia
> And moreover, as I know from publications of the HaAkademia LaLashon
> HaIvrit, there is almost no new word created today that a Hebrew
> parallel cannot be found for it, from a Hebrew root.
Excepting the word _Academia_ ! (the shoemaker's children go barefoot)
By the way, are these publications available by subscription?
Shalom,
Shlomo Godick
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Arnold Kuzmack <kuzmack@...>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 23:11:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Hebrew
Yisrael Medad wrote:
> .... what is remarkable is that even a non-religious Sabra today can
> more than adequately read and understand the Hebrew spoken by our
> forefathers 4,000 years ago. No other people can do that.
Although I do not speak from first-hand knowledge, my understanding is
that the Chinese can too, due to the unique separation between meaning
and sound in their writing system. Similarly, speakers of different
dialects who could not converse with each other can write to each other
and be understood.
I don't know what the situation is with Arabic: whether a literate
speaker of modern Arabic can read the Koran without special training.
Does anyone know?
In the case of Hebrew, the normal process of linguistic change was
interrupted by two millenia during which it was not much used as a
langauge of daily life. In recent decades, the change has been fairly
rapid, as though making up for lost time and raising the possibility
that Hebrew of a few centuries from now will be quite different from
today's.
BTW, the accessibility of Biblical Hebrew to speakers of Modern Hebrew
is not an unmixed blessing. We think we know what the words mean. Some
years ago, a fairly well-known rabbi said in a talk that Shechem
tortured Dinah, based on the word "vay@aneha" (@ = schwa) in Gen. 34:2.
While this word means "torture" in Modern Hebrew, in Biblical Hebrew, it
is closer to "exploit" and does not imply the infliction of physical
pain. Along the same lines, I participated in an exchange in MJ as to
whether a pasuk that contained the root het.bet.lamed had any connection
with terrorism.
Shavua tov,
Arnie Kuzmack
<kuzmack@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <JDST156@...> (Yosef Dweck)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:39:33 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Hypertension and Salting Meat
I would just like to make a small comment on Mottel Gutnick's solution
for the hypertension problem and the law of meliha.
It seems that Rav Gutnick suggested an alternative to meliha called
Halita, in which immediate boiling in water stops the blood that is
already inside the meat from moving. However, if I may, I would like to
suggest a different and perhaps safer alternative to Halita. The reason
being that most poskim based on the ge'onim (Hulin daf Kuf Yud Alef amud
alef, Shulhan Aruch Yoreh Deah Siman Ayin Gimal, Seif Bet) prohibited
such activity, being that we are not experts in just how exactly it
should be done. The Mehaber in any case is posek that Bediavad (post
facto) one may cook meat that has been boiled in such a manner.
Being that this poses a problem halachicly in several places, a
different idea might be possible.
We are taught that: "meliah harei hu keroteah" the salting of meat is
as if its roasted. Meaning that like when roasting meat all blood is
extracted, so to salting it does the same (more about this principal can
be found in She'elot Utshuvot "Avkat Rochel" of the mehaber Siman Resh
Tet Vav). Thus in a case like this when no salt at all can be used it is
much safer halachicly to resort to roasting the meat than the boiling
process mentioned by Rav Gutnick.
In any case this is not to disagree with Rav Gutnick's halachic advise
but simply to add a preferable alternative. In any case if someone can't
eat roasted meat or for some reason roasting it is not possible, one may
deffinitely rely on Rav Gutnick's instructions as brought in Harav
HIDA's Mahazik Beracha Seif Nun Alef, & Kneset Hagdolah, Hagahot Bet
Yosef Seif Shin Dalet.
Bebirkat Hatorah Velomdeha,
Yosef Dweck
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Merling, Paul <MerlingP@...>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 97 11:12:00 PST
Subject: Lo Tirtsach
I agree with Bernard Katz (vol 26:6) that the Sixth Commandment
(or better the Sixth Statement) should be translated as "You shall not
kill.' I have a reservation about his reasoning that since the word
MURDER means immoral killing, for Hashem to command, You shall not
murder, is a tautology. He compares it to the statement" It is morally
wrong to do something which is morally wrong." But Bernard Katz is
wrong. Rashi explains the Mishna in Brachos about one who says" Have
mercy on us" as you did on the mother bird in her nest: The mitsvos are
Gizeiros -- edicts from the Omnipresent. Even those Mitsvos which
presumably one would observe without Hashem's explicit commandment
should be done Lishem Mitsva - to carry out the King's orders, to show
our love and total subservience to the Commander of the Mitsvos, may His
Name be blessed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <CARLSINGER@...>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 97 21:04:09 UT
Subject: Plagiarism
HaRav Wasserman asks:
>What constitutes plagiarism, al pi halachah? Would the following passages
>qualify when compared?
> [two passeges deleted - Mod]
>Are we dealing with plagiarism here or not?
plagiarism -- not from halachic or legal view:
It's a good question. One of content and context.
Re: content -- much of the same information, presented in the same
sequence with apparently no reference or citation. -- However, two
people seeing the same traffic accident or using the same source books
might have similar descriptions.
Re: context -- what took place? Did M. Katz read and paraphrase
I. Fishman, did both read and paraphrase or extract some other source,
was this simply a coincidence of limited, exact information presented in
the same sequence. For example, if 10 people were asked to describe the
U.S. Flag, there are perhaps 5 or 6 relevant facts. Some of the 10
might use similar sequences and look like they were copying. Also, this
is one paragraph in what must be a larger work -- so is this similarity
isolated or systemic. Push comes to shove, we should ask the author(s)
The plagiarism that I believe is the subject of much of the discussions
is rather blatant. Computer cut and paste, direct, word-for-word
copying of articles, lack of attribution, and especially use of outside
resources in what's is supposed to be individual work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <elyashm@...>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 09:27:34 +0200 (WET)
Subject: Sheheheyanu ; Noise
The minhag by most Sepharadim is that the person who bought the Kol Nidre
Torah says the Shehehyanu bracha,and all present are hear the bracha &
answer 'amen'. (It is the general custom to sell aliyot etc. in Sephradic
synoguges - but - no charge for your place).
Noise on Purim- the worst noise in Israel is the children shooting off the
play pistols. It also smells bad. Baruch Hashem in our syn. we "outlawed"
them. Also, the Gabbaim limit the time of noise mainly because in most
years the Megilah is read when we are still fasting. The morning reading
is a lesser problem because we start early .
Menashe Elyashiv
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bracha Waintman <yu167354@...>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:25:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Shidduchim and Illness
Didn't Hashem create each and every one of us? Doesn't that mean that He
created people who are infertile, for example, as well as those who are
fertile? By separating those people by making it extremely difficult for
them to find a shidduch, are we not in effect saying that they are NOT
good enough for us, or that something that Hashem created is bad? Hashem
made each person differently - who are we to judge who is better because
of the way that they were created? By separating them, aren't we, in
effect, saying that we are better than God, because He created these
people who we say are "bad" and therefore we treat them as bad?
Bracha Waintman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eliyahu Segal <segaleli@...>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:21:56 +0200 (IST)
Subject: Simanei Taharah and Wallabies
> From: <kaufmann@...> (David Kaufmann)
> I remain a bit skeptical. "Chewing the cud" has a specific halachic
> definition, I would think. Does every act of regurgitation and
> re-chewing fall into the proper category? Also, "chewing the cud"
> halachically refers to mammals. (Do not some birds have a similar
> process of regurgitation, for instance? (My biology classes were long
> ago.)) Would marsupials even classify within the category, or would
> other simanim be needed (just as a fish or bird does not have the same
> simanim as a mammal)?
Yes a marsupial is a mammal. I am wondering why everyone assumes
that all 3 are taken up. I know people say that shafan and arnevet are
rabbit and hare but are they really? Are they really maaleh gareh(chew
they're cud according the halachic definition)? And even if they are can
they be counted as one? After all we count the camel and dromedary
as one. Could anyone summarize the rules for when the halacha classifies
animals as separate 'species'. I know that biologists classify a
species as animals that reproduce together in the natural
enviroment(ie. even though if you put lions and tigers in the same cage
they can reproduce tions and ligers they are still separate species).
Also if anyone can help me, I remeber reading a quoted gemara. It starts
off 'and was moshe a hunter'(vichi moshe hayah..). It asks why does the
torah mention that the pig was the only one that had cloved hooves and
answer to show the beauty of the torah(I am not quoting). The
interesting thing is that the gemara also asks why just the camel or
something like that. The chumash mentions three but maybe they didn't
know all 3 or only considered the gamal to be truly maaleh 'gareh'(chewing
the cud). I don't know. If anyone has read a gemara like that and
understands it, feel free to reply:)
Eliyahu Segal
<segaleli@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Sherer <sherer@...>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:16:05 +0200
Subject: Thou shalt not, umm, commit whatchamacallit
Seth Gordon writes:
> [Jonathan Abrams:]
> ...when someone kills someone accidentally it is NOT murder but yet
> it is still forbidden under the commandment "Lo Tirtzach"....
> I'm confused by these remarks. Rashi s.v. Exodus 20:13 says that the
> commandments in this verse are dealing with capital crimes, and
> accidental homicide isn't a capital crime.
I don't think that "forbidden" is the right word for accidental
homicide. I think if you substitute "s/he is still liable" for "it is
still forbidden" you will find Jonathan's remarks to be less confusing.
-- Carl Sherer
Thank you for davening for our son, Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya. Please
keep him in mind for a healthy, long life.
Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:<sherer@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <zg@...> (Zvi Goldberg)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 15:53:57 EST
Subject: Toothpaste on Shabbos
I can understand why brushing your teeth on Shabbos is
permissable because smoothing is not a problem, but why isn't there a
concern of halbana (whitening) ?
Furthermore, for those with sore gums, causing anything to bleed
is also prohibited because of shechita (slaughtering) ?
Zvi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 26 Issue 8
